Radical feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1] Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s,[2] typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4] Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism[1] to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.[5] Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in socialist feminism and Marxist feminism).

Over the years radical feminists have been criticized for arguing that male domination of women is the ultimate source of all forms of oppression, for ignoring white middle-class privilege and emphasizing sex-based discrimination at the expense of race- and class-based discrimination, for being unwilling to work with men to effect change through political channels, and for marginalizing lesbian sexuality.

Theory and ideology[edit]

Radical feminists assert that their society is a patriarchy in which the class of men are the oppressors of the class of women.[6] Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy. Radical feminism posits the theory that, due to patriarchy, women have come to be viewed as the "other" to the male norm and as such have been systematically oppressed and marginalized. They also believe that the way to deal with patriarchy and oppression of all kinds is to address the underlying causes of these problems through revolution. They assert that men as a class benefit from the oppression of women.

While some radical feminists propose that the root cause of all other inequalities is the oppression of women, others acknowledge the simultaneous and intersecting effect of other independent categories of oppression as well. These other categories of oppression may include, but are not limited to, oppression based on gender identity, race, social class, perceived attractiveness, sexual orientation, and ability.[7]

Patriarchal theory is not always defined as a belief that all men always benefit from the oppression of all women. Patriarchal theory maintains that the primary element of patriarchy is a relationship of dominance, where one party is dominant and exploits the other party for the benefit of the former. Radical feminists believe that men use social systems and other methods of control to keep non-dominant men and all women suppressed.[citation needed] Radical feminists also believe that eliminating patriarchy, and other systems which perpetuate the domination of one group over another, will liberate everyone from an unjust society.

Some radical feminists called[8] for women to govern women and men, among them Andrea Dworkin,[9] Phyllis Chesler,[10] Monique Wittig (in fiction),[11] Mary Daly,[12] Jill Johnston,[13] and Robin Morgan.[14]

Redstockings co-founder Ellen Willis wrote in 1984 that radical feminism "got sexual politics recognized as a public issue",[2] "created the vocabulary… with which the second wave of feminism entered popular culture",[2] "sparked the drive to legalize abortion",[2] "were the first to demand total equality in the so-called private sphere"[2] ("housework and child care ... emotional and sexual needs"),[2] and "created the atmosphere of urgency"[2] that almost led to the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.[2] The influence of radical feminism can be seen in the adoption of these issues by the National Organization for Women (NOW),[citation needed] a feminist group, that had previously been focused almost entirely on economic issues.[15]

The movement[edit]

Movement roots[edit]

The ideology of radical feminism in the United States developed as a component of the women's liberation movement. It grew largely due to the influence of the civil rights movement that had gained momentum in the 1960s and many of the women who took up the cause of radical feminism had previous experience with radical protest in the struggle against racism. Chronologically, it can be seen within the context of second wave feminism that started in the early 1960s.[16] The primary players and the pioneers of this second wave of feminism included the likes of Shulamith Firestone, Kathie Sarachild, Ti-Grace Atkinson, Carol Hanisch, and Judith Brown. Many local women's groups in the late sixties, such as the UCLA Women's Liberation Front (WLF), offered diplomatic statements of radical feminism's ideologies. UCLA's WLF co-founder Devra Weber recalls, "'... the radical feminists were opposed to patriarchy, but not necessarily capitalism. In our group at least, they opposed so-called male dominated national liberation struggles'".[17]

These women helped secure the bridge that translated radical protest for racial equality over to the struggle for women's rights; by witnessing the discrimination and oppression to which the black population was subjected, they were able to gain strength and motivation to do the same for their fellow women. They took up the cause and advocated for a variety of women's issues, including abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, access to credit, and equal pay.[18] While certainly worthy[dubious ] causes for advocacy, they failed to stir up enough interest among most of the women's fringe groups of society. A majority of women of color did not participate a great deal in the formation of radical feminist movement because it did not address many issues that were relevant to those from a working-class background, of which they were a sizeable part.[19] But for those who felt compelled enough to stand up for the cause, radical action was needed, and so they took to the streets and formed consciousness raising groups to rally support for the cause and recruit people who would be willing to fight for it. Later on however, Second Wave radical feminism saw greater numbers of black feminists and other women of color participating.

In the 1960s, radical feminism emerged simultaneously within liberal feminist and working class feminist discussions, first in the United States, then in the United Kingdom and Australia. Those involved had gradually come to believe that it was not only the middle-class nuclear family oppressed women, but that it was also social movements and organizations that claimed to stand for human liberation, notably the counterculture, the New Left, and Marxist political parties, all of which they considered to be male-dominated and male-oriented. Women in countercultural groups related that the gender relations present in such groups were very much those of mainstream culture.

In the United States, radical feminism developed as a response to some of the perceived failings of both New Left organizations such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and feminist organizations such as NOW.[citation needed] Initially concentrated mainly in big cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington, DC, and on the West Coast,[20] radical feminist groups spread across the country rapidly from 1968 to 1972.

In the United Kingdom, feminism developed out of discussions within community based radical women's organizations and discussions by women within the Trotskyist left.[citation needed] Radical feminism was imported into the UK by American radical feminists and seized on by British radical women as offering an exciting new theory to replace Trotskyism.[citation needed] As the 1970s progressed, British feminists split into two major schools of thought: socialist and radical.[citation needed] In 1977, another split occurred, with a third grouping calling itself "revolutionary feminism" breaking away from the other two.[citation needed]

Australian radical feminism developed slightly later, during an extended period of social radicalization, largely as an expression of that radicalization.

As a form of practice, radical feminists introduced the use of consciousness raising (CR) groups. These groups brought together intellectuals, workers, and middle class women in developed Western countries to discuss their experiences. During these discussions, women noted a shared and repressive system regardless of their political affiliation or social class. Based on these discussions, the women drew the conclusion that ending patriarchy was the most necessary step towards a truly free society. These consciousness-raising sessions allowed early radical feminists to develop a political ideology based on common experiences women faced with male supremacy. Consciousness raising was extensively used in chapter sub-units of the National Organization for Women (NOW) during the 1970s. The feminism that emerged from these discussions stood first and foremost for the liberation of women, as women, from the oppression of men in their own lives, as well as men in power. Radical feminism claimed that a totalizing ideology and social formation—patriarchy (government or rule by fathers)—dominated women in the interests of men.

Within groups such as New York Radical Women (1967–1969), (no relation to Radical Women, a present-day socialist feminist organization), which Ellen Willis characterized as "the first women's liberation group in New York City",[21] a radical feminist ideology began to emerge that declared that "the personal is political"[2] and "sisterhood is powerful",[2] formulations that arose from these consciousness-raising sessions. New York Radical Women fell apart in early 1969 in what came to be known as the "politico-feminist split"[21] with the "politicos"[21] seeing capitalism as the source of women's oppression, while the "feminists"[21] saw male supremacy as "a set of material, institutionalized relations, not just bad attitudes."[21] The feminist side of the split, which soon began referring to itself as "radical feminists",[21] soon constituted the basis of a new organization, Redstockings. At the same time, Ti-Grace Atkinson led "a radical split-off from NOW",[22] which became known as The Feminists.[22] A third major stance would be articulated by the New York Radical Feminists, founded later in 1969 by Shulamith Firestone (who broke from the Redstockings) and Anne Koedt.[23]

During this period, the movement produced "a prodigious output of leaflets, pamphlets, journals, magazine articles, newspaper and radio and TV interviews."[2] Many important[citation needed] feminist works, such as Koedt's essay The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm (1970) and Kate Millet's book Sexual Politics (1970), emerged during this time and in this milieu.

Ideology emerges and diverges[edit]

At the beginning of this period, "heterosexuality was more or less an unchallenged assumption."[24] Among radical feminists, the view became widely held that, thus far, the sexual freedoms gained in the sexual revolution of the 1960s—in particular, the decreasing emphasis on monogamy—had been largely gained by men at women's expense.[24] This assumption of heterosexuality would soon be challenged by the rise of political lesbianism, closely associated with Atkinson and The Feminists.[25] The belief that the sexual revolution was a victory of men over women would eventually lead to the women's anti-pornography movement of the late 1970s.[citation needed]

Redstockings and The Feminists were both radical feminist organizations, but held rather distinct views. Most members of Redstockings held to a materialist and anti-psychologistic view. They viewed men's oppression of women as ongoing and deliberate, holding individual men responsible for this oppression, viewing institutions and systems (including the family) as mere vehicles of conscious male intent, and rejecting psychologistic explanations of female submissiveness as blaming women for collaboration in their own oppression.[26] They held to a view—which Willis would later describe as "neo-Maoist"[22]—that it would be possible to unite all or virtually all women, as a class, to confront this oppression by personally confronting men.[27]

The Feminists held a more idealistic, psychologistic, and utopian philosophy, with a greater emphasis on "sex roles",[28] seeing sexism as rooted in "complementary patterns of male and female behavior".[28] They placed more emphasis on institutions, seeing marriage, family, prostitution, and heterosexuality as all existing to perpetuate the "sex-role system".[28] They saw all of these as institutions to be destroyed. Within the group, there were further disagreements, such as Koedt's viewing the institution of "normal"[28] sexual intercourse as being focused mainly on male sexual or erotic pleasure, while Atkinson viewed it mainly in terms of reproduction.[28] In contrast to the Redstockings, The Feminists generally considered genitally focused sexuality to be inherently male.[29] Ellen Willis would later write that insofar as the Redstockings considered abandoning heterosexual activity, they saw it as a "bitter price"[29] they "might have to pay for [their] militance",[29] whereas The Feminists embraced separatism as a strategy.[29]

The New York Radical Feminists (NYRF) took a more psychologistic (and even biologically determinist) line. They argued that men dominated women not so much for material benefits as for the ego satisfaction intrinsic in domination. Similarly, they rejected the Redstockings view that women submitted only out of necessity or The Feminists' implicit view that they submitted out of cowardice, but instead argued that social conditioning simply led most women to accept a submissive role as "right and natural".[30]

Action[edit]

Radical feminism was not and is not only a movement of ideology and theory. Radical feminists also take direct action. In 1968, they protested against the Miss America pageant by throwing high heels and other feminine accoutrements into a garbage bin, to represent freedom.[31] In 1970, they also staged a sit-in at the Ladies' Home Journal.[32] In addition, they held speakouts[1] about topics such as rape.

Radical egalitarianism[edit]

Because of their commitment to radical egalitarianism, most early radical feminist groups operated initially without any formal internal structure. When informal leadership developed, it was often resented. Many groups ended up expending more effort debating their own internal operations than dealing with external matters, seeking to "perfect a perfect society in microcosm"[33] rather than focus on the larger world. Resentment of leadership was compounded by the view that all "class striving"[33] was "male-identified".[33] In the extreme, exemplified by The Feminists, the upshot, according to Ellen Willis, was "unworkable, mechanistic demands for an absolutely random division of labor, taking no account of differences in skill, experience, or even inclination".[33] "The result," writes Willis, "was not democracy but paralysis."[33] When The Feminists began to select randomly who could talk to the press, Ti-Grace Atkinson quit the organization she had founded.[33]

Social organization and aims in the U.S. and Australia[edit]

Radical feminists have generally formed small activist or community associations around either consciousness raising or concrete aims. Many radical feminists in Australia participated in a series of squats to establish various women's centres, and this form of action was common in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By the mid-1980s many of the original consciousness raising groups had dissolved, and radical feminism was more and more associated with loosely organized university collectives. Radical feminism can still be seen, particularly within student activism and among working class women.

In Australia, many feminist social organizations accepted government funding during the 1980s, and the election of a conservative government in 1996 crippled these organizations.

While radical feminists aim to dismantle patriarchal society in a historical sense, their immediate aims are generally concrete. Some common demands include:

"Defined by feminists in the 1970s as a basic human right, it includes the right to abortion and birth control, but implies much more. To be realised, reproductive freedom must include not only woman's right to choose childbirth, abortion, sterilisation or birth control, but also her right to make those choices freely, without pressure from individual men, doctors, governmental or religious authorities. It is a key issue for women, since without it the other freedoms we appear to have, such as the right to education, jobs and equal pay, may prove illusory. Provisions of childcare, medical treatment, and society's attitude towards children are also involved."[34]

  • Changing the organizational sexual culture, e.g., breaking down traditional gender roles and reevaluating societal concepts of femininity and masculinity (a common demand in U.S. universities during the 1980s). In this, they often form tactical alliances with other currents of feminism.

Other nations[edit]

The movement also arose in Israel among Jews.[35]

Radical feminism and Marxism[edit]

Some strains of radical feminism have been compared to Marxism in that they describe a "great struggle of history"[36] between two opposed forces. Much like the Marxist struggle between classes (typically, with reference to the present day, the proletariat and bourgeoisie), radical feminism describes a historical struggle between "women" and "men". Radical feminism has had a close, if sometimes hostile, relationship with Marxism since its origins.[24] Both Marxists and radical feminists seek a total and radical change in social relations and consider themselves to be on the political left. Despite this commonality, as ideologies Marxism and radical feminism have generally opposed one another;[citation needed] radical feminism can be contrasted to socialist feminism in this respect. In practice, however, activist alliances generally form around shared immediate goals.[citation needed]

Some radical feminists are explicitly avowed Marxists, and attempt to explore relationships between patriarchal and class analysis. This strain of radical feminism can trace its roots to the Second International (in particular, the Marxists Rosa Luxembourg and Alexandra Kollontai). These strains of radical feminism are often referred to as "Marxist feminism".[citation needed]

Other radical feminists have criticized Marxists; during the 1960s in the U.S., many women became feminists because they perceived women as being excluded from, and discriminated against by, leftist political groups.[37]

Radical lesbian feminism[edit]

Main article: Radical lesbians

Radical lesbians is a movement within radical feminism, distinguished from other radical feminists through their ideological roots in political lesbianism.

Criticism[edit]

Within the New Left, radical feminists were accused of being "bourgeois", "antileft", or even "apolitical", whereas they saw themselves as further "radicalizing the left by expanding the definition of radical".[38] Radical feminists have tended to be white and middle class. Ellen Willis hypothesized in 1984 that this was, at least in part, because "most black and working-class women could not accept the abstraction of feminist issues from race and class issues";[3] the resulting narrow demographic base, in turn, limited the validity of generalizations based on radical feminists' personal experiences of gender relations.[3] Many early radical feminists broke political ties with "male-dominated left groups",[38] or would work with them only in ad hoc coalitions.[38]

Betty Friedan and other liberal feminists often see precisely the radicalism of radical feminism as potentially undermining the gains of the women's movement with polarizing rhetoric that invites backlash and hold that they overemphasize sexual politics at the expense of political reform.[citation needed] Other critics of radical feminism from the political left, including socialist feminists, strongly disagree with the radical feminist position that the oppression of women is the most fundamental form of oppression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class; these critics hold that issues of race and of class are as important or more important than issues about gender.

Some feminists, most notably Alice Echols and Ellen Willis, held that after about 1975[2] most of what continued to be called "radical feminism" represents a narrow subset of what was originally a more ideologically diverse movement. Willis saw this as an example of a "conservative retrenchment"[21] that occurred when the "expansive prosperity and utopian optimism of the '60s succumbed to an era of economic limits and political backlash."[21] They label this dominant tendency "cultural feminism"[2] and view it as a "neo-Victorian"[39] ideology coming out of radical feminism but ultimately antithetical to it.[40] Willis drew the contrast that early radical feminism saw itself as part of a broad left politics, whereas much of what succeeded it in the 1970s and early 1980s (both cultural feminism and liberal feminism) took the attitude that "left politics were 'male' and could be safely ignored."[41] She further wrote that whereas the original radical feminism "challenge[d] the polarization of the sexes",[39] cultural feminism simply embraces the "traditional feminine virtues".[39] Critics of cultural feminism hold that cultural feminist ideas on sexuality, exemplified by the feminist anti-pornography movement, severely polarized feminism, leading to the "Feminist Sex Wars" of the 1980s. Critics of Echols and Willis hold that they conflate several tendencies within radical feminism, not all of which are properly called "cultural feminism" and that cultural feminism is not radical feminism, and emphasize a greater continuity between early and contemporary radical feminism.

Also, Willis, although very much a part of early radical feminism and continuing to hold that it played a necessary role in placing feminism on the political agenda, later criticised its inability "to integrate a feminist perspective with an overall radical politics,"[38] while viewing this limitation as inevitable in the historical context of the times.[38] In part this limitation arose from the fact that consciousness raising, as "the primary method of understanding women's condition"[24] in the movement at this time and its "most successful organizing tool",[24] led to an emphasis on personal experience that concealed "prior political and philosophical assumptions".[24]

Willis, writing in 1984, was critical of the notion that all hierarchies are "more specialized forms of male supremacy"[4] as preventing adequate consideration of the possibility that "the impulse to dominate… could be a universal human characteristic that women share, even if they have mostly lacked the opportunity to exercise it."[4] Further, the view of oppression of women as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] allowed middle-class white women to minimize the benefits of their own race and class privilege and tended to exclude women from history.[4] Further, Willis wrote that the movement never developed "a coherent analysis of either male or female psychology"[42] and that it ultimately raised hopes that its narrow "commitment to the sex-class paradigm"[42] could not fulfill; when those hopes were dashed, according to Willis the resulting despair was the foundation of withdrawal into counterculturalism and cultural feminism.[42]

A common criticism against feminism on the internet argues that radical feminism promotes a victim mentality amongst young women, inciting protests against events that have little to do with feminism.[43] Susannah Breslin, a Forbes contributor wrote "Feminism claims to be about empowerment. In fact, over the years, it has increasingly devoted itself to promoting the image of women as victims. Victims of men. Victims of pop culture. Victims of sexism. Victims of discrimination. Victims of other women."[44]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Willis, p. 117.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Willis, p. 118.
  3. ^ a b c d Willis, p. 122.
  4. ^ a b c d e Willis, p. 123.
  5. ^ Willis, p. 141.
  6. ^ Echols, p. 139.
  7. ^ Selma James, Sex, Race and Class, dated April 1, 2004 on the Autonomy and Solidarity website. Accessed online 7 July 2007.
  8. ^ Zerilli, Linda M. G., Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005 (ISBN 0-226-98133-9)), p. 101.
     • Eller, Cynthia, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 2000 (ISBN 0-8070-6792-X)), p. 3.
  9. ^ Dworkin, Andrea, Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation (N.Y.: Free Press, 2000 (ISBN 0-684-83612-2)), p. 246 and see pp. 248 & 336.
     • Take No Prisoners, in The Guardian, May 13, 2000, as accessed Sep. 6, 2010.
     • Ouma, Veronica A., Dworkin's Scapegoating, in Palestine Solidarity Review (PSR), Fall 2005, as accessed Oct. 21, 2010.
  10. ^ Chesler, Phyllis, Women and Madness (N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, rev'd & updated ed., 1st ed. 2005 (ISBN 1-4039-6897-7)), pp. 335–336, 337–338, 340, 341, 345, 346, 347, & 348–349 (original ed. prob. published 1972, per id., p. [ix] ("1972 Acknowledgments") (sales 2.5 million copies, per id. (pbk.), cover I, & Douglas, Carol Anne, Women and Madness, in off our backs, op. cit.).
     • Douglas, Carol Anne, Women and Madness, in off our backs, vol. 36, no. 2, Jul. 1, 2006, p. 71, col. 1 (Review) (ISSN 0030-0071).
     • Spender, Dale, For the Record: The Making and Meaning of Feminist Knowledge (London: The Women's Press, 1985 (ISBN 0-7043-2862-3)), p. 151 and see reply from Phyllis Chesler to author at p. 214.
  11. ^ Wittig, Monique, trans. David Le Vay, Les Guérillères (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, reprint 1985 (ISBN 0-8070-6301-0), 1969 Les Editions de Minuit), passim and see pp. 112, 114–115, 127, 131, & 134–135 (novel).
     • Moi, Toril, Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (London: Routledge, 2d ed., 2002 (ISBN 0-415-28012-5)), p. 78.
     • Auerbach, Nina, Communities of Women: An Idea in Fiction (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1978 (ISBN 0-674-15168-2)), p. 186.
     • Porter, Laurence M., Feminist Fantasy and Open Structure in Monique Wittig's Les Guérillères, in Morse, Donald E., Marshall B. Tymn, & Csilla Bertha, eds., The Celebration of the Fantastic: Selected Papers from the Tenth Anniversary International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1992 (ISBN 0-313-27814-8)), p. 267.
     • Zerilli, Linda M. G., Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom, op. cit., p. 80 n. 51, quoting Porter, Laurence M., Feminist Fantasy and Open Structure in Monique Wittig's Les Guérillères, op. cit., p. [261].
  12. ^ Daly, Mary, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, pbk. 1978 & 1990 (prob. all content except New Intergalactic Introduction 1978 & prob. New Intergalactic Introduction 1990) (ISBN 0-8070-1413-3)), p. 15 and see pp. xxvi & xxxiii (both in New Intergalactic Introduction) & pp. 29, 375 & fnn., & 384 (New Intergalactic Introduction separate from Introduction: The Metapatriarchal Journey of Exorcism and Ecstasy).
  13. ^ Johnston, Jill, Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1973 (SBN (not ISBN) 671-21433-0)), p. 248 and see pp. 248–249.
     • Franklin, Kris, & Sara E. Chinn, Lesbians, Legal Theory and Other Superheroes, in Review of Law & Social Change, vol. XXV, 1999, pp. 310–311, as accessed Oct. 21, 2010 (citing in n. 45 Lesbian Nation, p. 15)).
     • Ross, Becki L., The House That Jill Built: A Lesbian Nation in Formation (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, pbk. 1995 (ISBN 0-8020-7479-0)), passim, esp. pp. 8 & 15–16 & also pp. 19, 71, 111, 204, 205, 212, 219, & 231.
     • Ross, Becki L., The House That Jill Built, op. cit., p. 204 & n. 18, citing McCoy, Sherry, & Maureen Hicks, A Psychological Retrospective on Power in the Contemporary Lesbian-Feminist Community, in Frontiers, vol. 4, no. 3 (1979), p. 67.
  14. ^ Morgan, Robin, Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist (N.Y.: Random House, 1st ed. 1977 (ISBN 0-394-48227-1)), p. 187.
  15. ^ Willis, p. 138.
  16. ^ Sarah Gamble, ed. The Routledge companion to feminism and postfeminism (2001) p. 25
  17. ^ Linden-Ward & Green, p. 418.
  18. ^ Evans, Sara M. (Summer 2002). "Re-Viewing the Second Wave". Feminist Studies 28 (2): 258–267. 
  19. ^ Linden-Ward & Green, p. 434.
  20. ^ Willis, p. 118. Willis doesn't mention Chicago, but as early as 1967 Chicago was a major site for consciousness-raising and home of the Voice of Women's Liberation Movement; see Kate Bedford and Ara Wilson Lesbian Feminist Chronology: 1963-1970, accessed online 8 July 2007.
  21. ^ a b c d e f g h Willis, p. 119.
  22. ^ a b c Willis, p. 124.
  23. ^ Willis, p. 133.
  24. ^ a b c d e f Willis, p. 121.
  25. ^ Willis, p. 131.
  26. ^ Willis, pp. 124–126.
  27. ^ Willis, p. 128.
  28. ^ a b c d e Willis, pp. 130–132.
  29. ^ a b c d Willis, p. 132.
  30. ^ Willis, pp. 133–134.
  31. ^ Echols, pp. 92–101.
  32. ^ Echols, pp. 195–197.
  33. ^ a b c d e f Willis, pp. 138–140.
  34. ^ From The Encyclopedia of Feminism (1986) Lisa Tuttle
  35. ^ Misra, Kalpana, & Melanie S. Rich, Jewish Feminism in Israel: Some Contemporary Perspectives (Hanover, N.H.: Univ. Press of New England (Brandeis Univ. Press), 1st ed. 2003 (ISBN 1-58465-325-6)) (author sr. fellow, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Univ. of Minn., dir., Intntl. Women's Rights Action Watch, law degree, Univ. of Minn., & doctoral degree in Eng. & Am. lit., Univ. of Penna., editor Kalpana Misra assoc. prof. pol. sci., Univ. of Tulsa), & editor Melanie S. Rich psychologist & chair, Partnership 2000 Women's Forum).
  36. ^ Catherine MacKinnon. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. , 3.
  37. ^ Echols, pp. 135–137.
  38. ^ a b c d e Willis, p. 120.
  39. ^ a b c Willis, p. 143.
  40. ^ Willis, p. 117. "[Cultural feminists] see the primary goal of feminism as freeing women from the imposition of so-called 'male values,' and creating an alternative culture based on 'female values.'"
  41. ^ Willis, p. 137.
  42. ^ a b c Willis, p. 134 et seq.
  43. ^ Goizueta, Cristina. "Who Is Saving Feminism?". Insider Online. 
  44. ^ Breslin, Susannah. "How Feminism Became a Joke". Forbes. Retrieved 22 March 2014. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]